Glaucoma Surgery
Glaucoma Disease » Glaucoma Surgery » What Happened???

What Happened???

Question:

Saul Schonfeld <s…@gate.net> wrote: >Ray >In view of thr strong opinions you have expressed re the medical profession I >am curious about the course of treatment you are following.  How effective is >it?

I assume this is addressed to me. My present course of treatment is zilch and has been for 2 years.  It is effective to the extent that my bad eye has not gotten functionally or otherwise symptomatically worse during the last 2 years.  I have no reason to believe, under those circumstances, that any objective damage has progressed.  The IOP in that eye, for what it’s worth, was still at its steady 22.  There is, of course, no present means of reversing any of the existing damage. There is still absolutely no subjective problem with my good eye.  2 years ago nothing showed up in that eye with the most sensitive perimeter technique.  No objective damage in that eye was noted.  Its IOP then was at its steady 18.  I have not gotten pressure readings or visual fields in the last 2 years.  I do not believe such field readings are much more sensitive than what I could detect from blinking at a flat field of light or looking at snow on a TV set. Looking at the range of posts in this newsgroup, sci.med.vision and alt.med.vision.improve, I don’t believe the results of this "course of treatment" compares poorly at all.  I certainly don’t want more holes poked into my irides — particularly in the good eye — and I don’t want medications designed to lower pressure that isn’t causing a problem or that have side effects, maybe over long periods of time, that damage my eyes or limit my use of them or make driving a hazard. My bad eye doesn’t cramp my style much, but its cause, my bad nose, does, and *it* *is* getting worse.  I have not found anyone who can do anything about it.  I don’t have any money to pursue much of anything anyway.  In attempt to learn something about the nose problem, and possibly something that might advise me on the prognosis of the slit of central vision in my bad eye, I am currently inquiring locally about getting a UBM (ultrasound biomicroscopy) scan to possibly see something about any distortions at the front of my eye — I guess tacitly to look for pupillary closure of the anterior chamber — but it might give some indication, more importantly to me, of what tissue problems in my front naso-sinus areas make my that area such a mess. Dr. Robert Ritch of NYEE, by e-mail, after I mentioned some eye symptoms, thought maybe that imaging mode might turn up something. Actually, I doubt it.  I had mentioned that, after lying horizontally for a while running my eyes, while shut, to their left stops produced a phosphene which appears to relate to the left (bad) eye and that the left eye has some convergence problem, under some circumstances, of about 12 deg, mostly horizontal inward (esophoria/-tropia) but some downward.  My having mentioned the past medical butchering of my nose made him consider, apparently, direct mechanical iatric disturbance of my orbit during surgery, but I don’t believe the problem is one of direct damage to the orbit, but rather of further disturbing blood flow to both nasal and ocular areas, which flow might’ve been not the best to begin with.  The early, rather extensive, operation on my nose distributed different tissues rather haphazardly, the results of which only much later have increasingly shown up, certainly nasally, and no doubt eyewise, particularly with combinations of certain food ingestion and weather conditions.  Perhaps I should just slap a separate12-deg off-the-shelf prism on the spectacle lens in front of my left eye, but since the problem is a little bit variable I’d prefer to find out, if I could, whether there is a possible control over the nasal tissues related to this problem that could be stabilized. One of the most distortive notions in American medicine, and probably elsewhere, is that of "primariness".  Shit doesn’t just happen; there’s always a hierarchy of fault mechanisms, just the same as in anything inanimate.  But each type of MD likes to live in his own little world. I’d make more interactive attempt with medical types or backroom biochemical labs in respect to the nasal problem if I had any money, rather than just trying to monitoring literature that is relevant, but I’m not one to live on that kind of stuff or to plan very far into the future, particularly given my limited resources. Apart from all of the above, it bugs me that you should wish to relate the progressive status of my particular eyes to the numerous systematic problems I have discussed regarding today’s medicine, and particularized in respect to glaucoma.  Do you really feel that knowledge of whether my eyes have fallen out on the sidewalk or have received a full Louvre cure is a measure of the truth or value of what I have printed in these newsgroups?  My eye condition has not evidenced particularly typical glaucoma progression and has developed in a rather unique context.  Many of the other cases discussed in these groups are unique in their own ways.  Some people posting here have scads of money to make choices in treatments for their eye conditions; some have next to none.  I believe most of what I have posted as obvious, correctable, systematic faults in glaucoma medicine — and which I have based on either apparent fact from peer-reviewed medical literature, properly scientifically analyzed, or on widely applicable aspects of my own glaucoma experience, as one in which it is manifest — does, in no way, hinge on the path my particular eye problems follow in the future.  My resources for treatment possibilities, my idiosyncratic bodily conditions, and even my lifestyle will play heavily in where my eyes go from here.  Such fate should not discount the correctable generalities and specifics I have posted in these groups which are systematical defects in medicine.  I have related my comments to facts which I have tried to reference, in many cases, for anyone’s verification.  It may not have been made clear, but my disgust with much of what goes on in medicine has not crowded out my correlate disgust with the way in which the American public, at least, guzzles up whatever medical potentates set before them to consume.  If I get to it, I am going to publish a Web page just comparing definitions of glaucoma taken from patient-directed medical writings with those from papers in the medical literature expected to be read only by fellow travelers.  Are you still thinking that the gods will blind me for speaking against their priests? Ray

Response:

I have posted several inquiries to this newsgroup, beginning this summer. I thank all of you who have provided me with advice and information, so that I can better help a friend of mine.. I myself don’t have glaucoma nor does my ophthamologist suspect that I might be developing it. Although I could get this information off of the Net or various encyclopedias, please humor me:         What are the known causes of glaucoma? By this question, I am asking, "Does a possibility exist to prevent glaucoma from occurring?" Thanks in advance :) ! Flo :) !

Response:

ra…@sirius.com (Raymond A. Chamberlin) wrote: >Flo Shirakawa <f…@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote: >………………….. >>please humor me: >>        What are the known causes of glaucoma? >Given reasonable wetware in the first place, most things that curtail >sufficient blood flow to the supporting tissues and neurons of the >optical nerve head. >>By this question, I am asking, "Does a possibility exist to prevent >>glaucoma from occurring?" >Yes, die of something else first. >(Consider yourself humored.)

Oh, and if that didn’t do it:  Consoder that staying away from MDs often helps. Ray  (A rotten apple a decade keeps the patient away.)

Response:

bo…@tiac.net (Ray Bonar) wrote: >Hi all; >Is it possible that glaucoma took a brief holiday?

Methinks it was rather his newsreader that took the holiday by dumping its contents.  He should reload it.  I noticed no such loss — and no less loss of vision from my glaucoma. Ray

Response:

I’ve been lurking in this ng for about a month or two now, and when I went in to read the latest postings, there were none?  I got the message "empty group." Is this ng still here, or will this message come back to me unsent?  I was really enjoying reading the postings, and I am quite disappointed, especially in view of the fact that I go to the eye doctor next week to have my yearly field of vision test. Thank you. ltb

Response:

ra…@sirius.com (Raymond A. Chamberlin) wrote: >Flo Shirakawa <f…@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote: >………………….. >>please humor me: >>        What are the known causes of glaucoma? >Given reasonable wetware in the first place, most things that curtail >sufficient blood flow to the supporting tissues and neurons of the >optical nerve head. >>By this question, I am asking, "Does a possibility exist to prevent >>glaucoma from occurring?" >Yes, die of something else first. >(Consider yourself humored.)

Oh, and if that didn’t do it:  Consider that staying away from MDs often helps. Ray  (A rotten apple a decade keeps the patient away.)

Response:

>No, I have had the same problem but only on alt.support.glaucoma – all >other newsgroups appear to be o.k. >–

I’ve been having the same problem.  What are we supposed to to about this?

Response:

Ray In view of thr strong opinions you have expressed re the medical profession I am curious about the course of treatment you are following.  How effective is it? Saul Schonfeld

Response:

plb…@ix.netcom.com(plb/ltb) wrote: >I’ve been lurking in this ng for about a month or two now, and when I >went in to read the latest postings, there were none?  I got the >message "empty group." >Is this ng still here, or will this message come back to me unsent?  I >was really enjoying reading the postings, and I am quite disappointed, >especially in view of the fact that I go to the eye doctor next week to >have my yearly field of vision test. >Thank you.

I currently download 12 articles. Ray

Response:

In article <58b02c$…@sun.sirius.com>, "Raymond A. Chamberlin" <ra…@sirius.com> writes >bo…@tiac.net (Ray Bonar) wrote: >>Hi all; >>Is it possible that glaucoma took a brief holiday? >Methinks it was rather his newsreader that took the holiday by dumping >its contents.  He should reload it.  I noticed no such loss — and no >less loss of vision from my glaucoma. >Ray

No, I have had the same problem but only on alt.support.glaucoma – all other newsgroups appear to be o.k. — Keith Pike

Response:

Raymond A. Chamberlin wrote: > plb…@ix.netcom.com(plb/ltb) wrote: > >I’ve been lurking in this ng for about a month or two now, and when I > >went in to read the latest postings, there were none?  I got the > >message "empty group."

It’s minimally alive, but the occasional soul who wanders through gets caring help from others who share the issue. Like some other medical issues, there are some uncertainties, and ahving a sounding board to share experience helps MPOV(=my point of view)

Response:

Related Posts

Write a comment